SHANKARLAL MAVJI PARMARversusHITESHBHAI JAYANTI PATEL
- Disposal
- 53-ALLOWED / GRANTED @ ADM.STAGE
- Bench
- HASMUKH D SUTHAR
Holding
The court condoned the 227‑day delay and allowed the application for condonation of delay.
Summary
The applicant, Shankarlal Mavji Parmar, filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 227‑day delay in filing a first appeal. The respondent No. 3 did not appear, while the other respondents opposed the condonation. The court examined the applicant’s explanation, finding it bona‑fide and not indicative of mala‑fide or dilatory intent. Emphasising that limitation rules should not defeat substantive justice, the court applied a liberal approach to the "sufficient cause" requirement. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in N. Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy, the court condoned the delay and allowed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 227 days in filing a first appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
Legislation cited
- Limitation Acts. 5
Subjects
Judgment
C/CA/5794/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/02/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5794 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL/32879/2025
==========================================================
SHANKARLAL MAVJI PARMAR
Versus
HITESHBHAI JAYANTI PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 23/02/2026
ORAL ORDER
This application is 2led under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay of 227 days caused in 2ling the First
Appeal.
Though served, respondent No.3 has not appeared. I have
heard the learned advocates for the respective parties.
It is submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant
that the applicant could not 2le the First Appeal in timely fashion
because of the reasons mentioned in the application and
therefore, has requested to condone the delay caused in 2ling
the First Appeal.
Learned advocate for respective respondents have
vehemently opposed the present application.
Considering the submissions made by the learned
Page 1 of 2
C/CA/5794/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/02/2026
advocates for the respective parties, the applicant has
mentioned su;cient cause for condonation of delay. The primary
function of the Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the
parties and to advance substantial justice. Rules of limitation are
not meant to destroy the rights of parties. The Court is aware of
the fact that denial to condone the delay would mean to dismiss
the First Appeal at threshold and there is no presumption that
the delay caused by the applicant is deliberate. In view thereof,
the words ‘su;cient cause’ under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
should receive a liberal consideration so as to advance
substantial justice. Even reason stated appears to be bona2de
and genuine. There is no smack of mala2de or dilatory tactics on
the part of the applicant. Further, it is apposite to refer to the
decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N.
Balakrishnan v. N. Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123.
In view of the above, the delay of 227 days as explained in
memo of the application is condoned. The application is
accordingly allowed and disposed of.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
Ajay
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: AJAY CHANDRAN MENON(HC00939), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 23/02/2026 15:13:35
Page 2 of 2
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.